Rose Buckner v. Property Management of Louisville, LLC for Larry Stokes
This text of Rose Buckner v. Property Management of Louisville, LLC for Larry Stokes (Rose Buckner v. Property Management of Louisville, LLC for Larry Stokes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
RENDERED: JANUARY 16, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-0254-DG
ROSE BUCKNER AND STEVE MAYS APPELLANTS
ON REVIEW FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE TRACY E. DAVIS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 24-XX-000080
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OF LOUISVILLE, LLC FOR LARRY STOKES APPELLEE
OPINION REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CETRULO, COMBS, AND L. JONES, JUDGES.
COMBS, JUDGE: This was a forcible detainer action in which we granted
discretionary review to tenants, Rose Buckner and Steve Mays, from an order of
the Jefferson Circuit Court. The circuit court’s order dismissed the appeal of
Buckner and Mays from a judgment of the Jefferson District Court that restored the
premises leased by them to Property Management of Louisville, LLC, for Larry Stokes (Property Management of Louisville). Buckner and Mays argue that the
circuit court erred by concluding that it lacked authority to extend time for them to
file a statement of appeal even where it concluded that a motion for an enlargement
of time was timely filed and counsel’s health issues presented good cause
justifying the requested extension.
Property Management of Louisville elected not to file an appellee
brief. Where an appellee’s brief has not been filed within the time allowed, our
rules of appellate procedure provide that the court may: (a) accept the appellant’s
statement of the facts and issues as correct; (b) reverse the judgment if appellant’s
brief reasonably appears to sustain such action; or (c) regard the appellee’s failure
as a confession of error and reverse the judgment without considering the merits of
the case. Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) 31(H)(3); Strong v. Gary,
673 S.W.3d 77, 79 (Ky. App. 2023).
Property Management of Louisville did not argue to the circuit court
that it lacked authority to extend time for the tenants to file a statement of appeal.
“[Property Management of Louisville] do[es] not mention or address RAP 6(C)[.]”
Order of the Jefferson Circuit Court dismissing appeal at 1, entered January 3,
2025. To its credit, Property Management of Louisville has not argued in favor of
the circuit court’s order dismissing the appeal. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of this case, we choose to regard the decision of Property
-2- Management of Louisville not to submit a brief as a confession of error and reverse
the judgment.
Filing a timely notice of appeal is necessary in order to invoke the
jurisdiction of an appellate court. RAP 2(A)(2). Buckner and Mays properly
appealed the district court’s judgment by filing a timely notice of appeal on
October 23, 2024, seven (7) days after it was entered.
With an exception for special statutory proceedings, our rules of
appellate procedure govern in all Kentucky courts. RAP 1(A). In special statutory
proceedings, the procedural requirements of the governing statutes prevail over any
inconsistent procedures prescribed by the rules. Id.
Article III of our rules of appellate procedure supplies general
provisions applicable to appeals. RAP 6 provides for the computation of time and
the extension of time limits. RAP 6(C) authorizes an appellate court -- for cause
shown -- to extend the time for an act that is required or allowed to be done within
a specified time if the request is made before the expiration of the period originally
prescribed. It expressly prohibits an extension of time for taking any action under
RAP 3(A) (time for filing a notice of appeal); RAP 4(B) (time for filing a notice of
cross-appeal); or RAP 17 (time for filing a notice of transfer from the Court of
Appeals to the Supreme Court).
-3- Article 9 of our rules of appellate procedure pertains specifically to
appeals from district court. RAP 48, found therein, provides, in part, that appeals
from district court to circuit court “must be prosecuted under the procedures set out
in this rule and other RAP provisions as set forth in this rule” with the exception of
an appeal from a final order entered in a district court proceeding based on a statute
providing a special remedy. RAP 48(A)(1). Relying on the language quoted, the
Jefferson Circuit Court concluded that the provisions of RAP 6 did not apply to
appeals from district court because its provisions were not specifically referenced
in the provisions of RAP 48. Consequently, the circuit court concluded that it was
not authorized to permit an extension of time in which the appellants could file the
statement of appeal required by RAP 48(F).
However, the circuit court did not address the remaining language of
RAP 48, which provides that “the procedural requirements of the statute [providing
a special remedy] will prevail over any inconsistent procedures set out in this rule
or any other RAP.” RAP 48(A)(2). The appellate rule specifically identifies KRS1
383.255, governing forcible detainer proceedings, as a special remedy statute.
RAP 48(B)(2).
The provisions of KRS 383.200-285 describe an ancient eviction
process with “unique procedural requirements.” Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d
1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-4- 418, 421 (Ky. 2016) (citing Baker v. Ryan, 967 S.W.2d 591, 592 (Ky. App. 1997)
(“the [forcible entry and detainer] statutes set up an exclusive procedure, complete
unto itself[.]”)). KRS 383.255 authorizes an appeal from a judgment of forcible
detainer. The party appealing must file a notice of appeal in the district court
within seven (7) days and deposit with the circuit court clerk
the amount of rent owing and due from the onset of the forcible entry and detainer proceedings as well as the amount of all future rents, as it becomes owing and due in each succeeding month during the pendency of the appeal.
KRS 383.255(1); but see Fickey v. Cross Creek Apartments, Ltd., 700 S.W.2d 807,
808 (Ky. App. 1985) (addressing whether the requirement to pay into court the
amount of rent owing is constitutional).
The statute provides the process for perfecting an appeal: the filing of
the notice of appeal and the payment of the required sum of money into court.
KRS 383.255(2); see also Fickey, 700 S.W.2d at 808 (“The circuit court
interpreted KRS 383.255 to mean that the appellant was required to pay into court
rent which was due and owing or have her appeal dismissed. We cannot fault the
circuit court for this interpretation because the clear implication of the statute is
that if the money is not paid into court, the appeal is not ‘perfected’ and, therefore,
must be dismissed.”).
-5- The district court is then required to stay its proceedings “and return
the whole of the papers and proceedings, or a fair transcript thereof, to the office of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rose Buckner v. Property Management of Louisville, LLC for Larry Stokes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-buckner-v-property-management-of-louisville-llc-for-larry-stokes-kyctapp-2026.